[Back] [Contents] [Journal Homepage]


  1. For example, CAA 2000 included pertinent contributions from Clarke, Pringle, Kilbride, and Thomsen (www.zrc-sazu.si/caa/abstracts.htm). CAA 2002 included relevant papers by Economou (www.caa2002.gr/abstracts_papers/75.html) and Pringle (www.caa2002.gr/abstracts_papers/60.html).
    Museums and the Web 2002 included commentary such as Goldman and Wadman's 'There's Something Happening Here, What It Is Ain't Exactly Clear', and other papers on evaluation frameworks for museum websites (www.archimuse.com/mw2002/abstracts/prg_165000781.html), as well as contributions like Korteweg and Trofanenko's paper on museum websites and learning (www.archimuse.com/mw2002/abstracts/prg_165000756.html).

    All of these could be highly relevant to anyone embarking on a small online public archaeology project, but if one has limited time and resources, obtaining and reviewing the specialist literature is probably not going to be a priority. [back]

  2. I am generally reluctant to use the term 'public' because many archaeologists seem to have a clear mental image of who comprises 'the public' and what those people are like, and because I think in some cases this image is best discarded in favour of a new one assembled from a broad range of evidence. I often tend, therefore, to use the term 'audience', to destabilise the existing construction a little. But given that 'public archaeology' is now an accepted label for a field of professional practice, I use it throughout this paper. [back]

  3. The first version of this paper was written in the summer of 2001. Subsequent revisions and updates have been comparatively minor, so it still represents the earliest part of this research program. [back]

  4. See also Kirsch 2001 for a very interesting review of anthropology's role in legal proceedings regarding loss of culture and land. [back]

  5. When using the expression 'to think historically' here, I mean to include archaeology of societies without written documents, and also archaeological science; I mean, simply, the kind of intellectual activity that is necessary to think about past events. [back]

  6. I do agree with the many commentators who suggest that some works in print have many of the characteristics of hypertext, and thus hypertext is not entirely new; however, the computerised aspects of WWW hypertext are clearly novel and significant. [back]

  7. It is hard to say whether this is a genuine case of parallel development, or of selective citation giving that impression. But given the explicitly social, egalitarian bent of Berners-Lee's vision (e.g. outlined in his 1999 talk), it would be an interesting project indeed to look closely at the timing of the emergence of similar trends in mainstream archaeological thought, to see whether there are specific common roots. [back]

  8. I would be remiss if I did not include a counterpoint here: Dillon and Gabbard (1998) conclude their review of a decade of experimental research regarding hypermedia and learning with the forlorn assessment that 'the benefits gained from use of hypermedia technology in learning scenarios appear to be very limited and not in keeping with the generally euphoric reaction to this technology in the professional arena.' [back]

[Back] [Contents] [Journal Homepage]

© Internet Archaeology URL: http://intarch.ac.uk/journal/issue15/1/notes.html
Last updated: Wed Jan 28 2004